Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday November 22, 2015 @11:32AM
from the that-wasn't-very-good dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Former NSA whistleblowers contend that the agency shut down a program that could have "absolutely prevented" some of the worst terror attacks in memory. According to the ZDNet story: "Weeks prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, a test-bed program dubbed ThinThread was shut down in favor of a more expensive, privacy-invasive program that too would see its eventual demise some three years later -- not before wasting billions of Americans' tax dollars. Four whistleblowers, including a congressional senior staffer, came out against the intelligence community they had served, after ThinThread. designed to modernize the agency's intelligence gathering effort, was cancelled. Speaking at the premier of a new documentary film A Good American in New York, which chronicles the rise and demise of the program, the whistleblowers spoke in support of the program, led by former NSA technical director William Binney."

I'd say that this century corporate greed in Pharma has improved efficiency in giving back revenue to the stockholders and bankers (stock buybacks, M&A) but hasn't done much at all for R&D. I don't see how the picture would improve if the incentive (market exclusivity) to throw money into a hole for a decade or more before finding out if there will be be a payout (typical for pharmaceutical R&D) is removed.

I don't think the almighty dollar is at fault here. the problem is a government that doesn't let the winner win, but chooses who it wants to win.

Although legislating market winners is a major problem in government, another one that may be occurring here is that when you have multiple competing systems and the "winner" fails spectacularly, the people behind the runners-up will always say that if their system had been chosen, things would have been OK. There's no way to tell whether ThinThread wouldn't have become the billion-dollar boondoggle instead of Trailblazer.

Heck, this is big government IT, it's quite likely that anything would have cratered.

Even with minimum wage, corporations have people working for no money. As long as they can pretend that the work serves some sort of educational purpose, they can use people as unpaid interns [nytimes.com] and get away with it.

Money may be a necessary evil, but the problem is not the money it's the way we structure our society and government around it. There should be absolutely no way for politicians to make money from anything except their paycheck, period. Sure, give them a nice salary and pension so they can live well, but any other income should be illegal, period. Direct or indirect. If you want the privilege of representing your fellow Americans in the government, there is a price you pay. Americans should be absolutely disgusted with the amount of corruption in the government. I really don't understand how people can be so complacent about it.

So sadly true. People don't even expect their leaders to be honest or have any integrity anymore. But really, are the people any different? I think that it's a representative government. The lack of integrity in the public is reflected in their leaders.

I think a good answer would be a combination of transparency, delays, and being fully subject to insider trading and other financial laws (no more "speech and debate" defenses). I don't think it would be too much to ask that elected officials give up much more of their financial privacy during their term of office, especially if a delay in the release of the information is incorporated. I also think it would make sense for public officials (and in some cases their staff) to be forced to wait to buy or sell

Should they be able to make money? just like everyone else yes they should. Preventing them from doing so is problematic, but disclosure is not. If you don't want your finances public, don't run for fucking office. That way we *know* when they are trading on their influence...they are automatically recused from anything in their financial portfolio or it's a crime.

The real tricky part is the revolving door between gov and private sector. That a congress member can make laws and then take a job in t

Making money is the problem in US politics, that and failure being rewarded and celebrated as long as sufficient corporate profits are generated. Take the failure in the Ukraine, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, basically spent 5 billion dollars to give Russia back the Crimea for free. Nuland and Pyatt are still celebrated basically for being the greatest fuck ups in modern times, trotted off to Russia to try to humiliate the Russians but the Russian can barely contain the mocking and laughter. From the

Didn't you read the follow-up story? [slashdot.org]. The free market fixed that problem, and the medicine is selling for a buck now.

Not quite that simple: many folks won't have access to a compounding pharmacy, the drug isn't for sale yet that I can tell, and for many or most drugs a compounding pharmacy won't be able to help. I think the real answer is pretty similar to your answer about money: not all monopolies are evil and we shouldn't abandon all monopolies. When rent seekers like Actelion and Turing learn to game the system it's time to reform the rules on restricted distribution and returning generic drugs to exclusive status; it

I agree with the approx. time period; but, think it was the continental railroad that resulted in Big business in American; by being the first Big business and helping create the later Big businesses.
Tim S.

That is false. To start with that quote refers to land ownership, and it was a statement of personal philosophy, not an element of the Constitution which is a governing document. The thinking behind it was that land owners would have vested interests and would exercise due care in voting and governing.

If that quote "proves" that big business has always ruled America, then Benjamin Franklin's quote about beer proves that God exists. Would you care to share your favorite hymn with us?

So many things wrong with what little you've said:A) While you, myself, and the esteemed Mr. Jay may each have a difference in opinion, the one thing we all have in common is that none of our opinions are law. Setting aside for the moment that his words don't mean what you think, his words hold no more bearing in matters of law than yours, mine, or anyone else's.

B) Two minutes of searching made it clear to me that you've taken Jay's words well outside the context in which they were offered. The full passage [wikiquote.org]

Of course Corporate America is supposed to rule America. What do you think the word "capital" in "Capitalism" means? Rule of those with capital., i.e. rule of the rich.

Funny, I thought capitalism was an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or corporations and in which decisions about pricing, production and distribution of the output of those capital goods is determined by the owners in a free market. Note that this does not preclude myriad forms of government regulation.

The only surprise is how "capitalism" has been marketed to Americans such that generations of them defend the rule of the rich as some utopia or ideal.

Well it's hardly surprising that private interests have rebranded regulation in the public interest by the boogey-man term "socialism", but I expect we are seeing early signs that this is starting to backfire. Americans in my generation associate "socialism" with the Soviet Union -- as a kind of "Communism lite". Millennials are increasingly apt to associate the word with the kind of "Nordic model" social democracy practiced in hellholes like Denmark and Sweden [note irony].

Greed is good for short-term gain, not long-term growth. It is very shortsighted thinking that is self-defeating over the long term when your customer base can no longer afford your products, or you've alienated them to the point where they choose your competitors' offerings out of spite.

Only goes to show. Of course, we have no proof that thin thread would of actually worked, but instead of caring about America's safety, the NSA only cared about getting more money.

Exactly. What boosts the perceived need for agencies like the NSA and their funding better and faster: (a) reasoning and prudence, (b) people getting killed and things blown up ? Preventing attacks would hurt their bottom line and struggle for power over the masses. (God damn, that was cynical - even for me.)

With the arrival of the Internet. Time was, almost everything you read had passed under the eyes of an English major somewhere in its trip to you. Repeated exposure to edited text reinforced what you'd learned in grammar school. There was only one place where semiliterate morons could transmit text to you...and the Internet is today's restroom wall.

With the arrival of the Internet. Time was, almost everything you read had passed under the eyes of an English major somewhere in its trip to you. Repeated exposure to edited text reinforced what you'd learned in grammar school. There was only one place where semiliterate morons could transmit text to you...and the Internet is today's restroom wall.

Umm wtf? There are a half dozen documentaries that include interviews with the designer of thin thread and former managers who put it into operation. The problem was not that they shut down ThinThread. The problem was that they removed the safeguards that were designed into it to prevent dragnet collection of domestic data and then put it in the field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That is what Tom Drake raised alarms about. He said check out this ThinThread thing we should use it. He was told no

I think that the government is more worried about the 300 plus million citizens of the country versus a few hundred idiot terrorists. One day down the road, probably a decade or less away there will come a time when the US government will be bankrupt. This is not a European society but a very large country with a very diverse population and a history of handling problems with violence. The more extreme the problem the more extreme the violence. Imagine a day when the government can no longer write the

These are the people running the campaign againt crypto (the reasons you cite are self-evident here). There's a bloody department with that task, yet ignorant apologists for power still live in denial. Oh, well - they won't be prepared for the troubles either; a sadly but soberingly self-limiting problem.

I would have loved to hear the conversation.... Where the powers that be were convinced that warrantless wiretapping of everyone was an improvement over concentrating on terror targets.

I think your statement nicely encapsulates a fair amount of the rampant confusion and nonsense ideas held about matters in this general area. "Warrantless" refers to the authorization method for conducting the surveillance, it has nothing to do with the targets of the surveillance ("terror targets"). There is nothing mutually exclusive about warrantless surveillance targeted at terrorists. You probably also fail to understand that "warrantless" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There are many searches t

It's very easy after a disaster to claim that an unfunded or ignored project would have prevented the disaster. Since the whistleblowers in the article are talking about the 9/11 terrorist attack, it seems a bit late. to be blowing whistles on it now.

It does seem clear that the NSA suffered, and is suffering, from Jerry Pournell's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy"

>> First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.

>> Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself

The amount of money, time, and manpower burned on oversampling incredible amounts of personal traffic would seem much better focused on parts of the world, and populations, where the monitoring is likely to bear more fruit. But that doesn't expand the NSA itself and its overall capacity.

It isn't bit late to blow the whistle now. You see, an election for president is close at hand and the narrative that a Clinton could have saved the world or something but another president fucked it up is important when the Clinton running is largely riding the coat tails of her husband's presidency and her own experience is being touted as a failure that brought us Libya, Russia invading Europe, ISIS or whatever they are calling it now, and many other failed policies while her most touted achievement se

The best clue for detecting bullshit in the efficacy claims for any intelligence apparatus is when its proponents state it would have prevented a complex security lapse like 9/11. Reading the article further it seems like a bunch of people just mad their ideas weren't adopted.

Well given the CIA report entited "Bin Laden determined to attack US" mentioning flying planes into buildings... and with the spooks trying to get emergency meetings with El Presidente Bush, I don't think Thin Thread would have helped.

The problem with 9/11 was a President who was too lazy to act, and was family friends with the Bin Ladens, so had a reason to ignore anything that might cause his friends/business partners bad press. It happened to suit his friends political agendas too. Giving them the excuse to pass Patriot act, and, as we learned from some of the leaks, the mass surveillance started 1998, and 9/11 Patriot act simply gave it a legal cover.

Yep, agree completely. We knew who was coming, how they were coming, and from where they were coming yet we somehow lacked the know how to stop them? We didn't lack the know how - we lacked the leadership and will to stop them.

That's just more security theater. Even using actual armor plate, a determined (read: prepared) terrorist will still get through it. The only possible mitigation is the pilot getting the plane on the ground, and disabled, but they can get in.

No. The problem with 9/11 was simply our collective inability to fathom such actions. NO ONE believed they'd take over a plane and fly it into a building. NO. ONE. So there was no imperative to shoot them down (which easily could have.) And no moral struggle for a pilot

I'll cut the wait short - there is nothing in that report to suggest that course of action was the right thing to do to frustrate al Qaeda's designs. You aren't offering insight, you're parroting back what was done after the fact and the actual method of attack became known. Although the Bush administration may have suffered a "failure of imagination" in countering Bin Laden you've gone the opposite direction - an overactive imagination confusing hindsight for insight.

Yep, agree completely. We knew who was coming,

False

.. how they were coming

False

, and from where they were coming

False

We didn't lack the know how - we lacked the leadership and will to stop them.

Why would they have to know Al Qaeda planned to fly the planes into buildings? They only had to know that that hijackings were planned - which they did. Prevent those hijackings with simple changes to cockpit procedure and you prevent all the downstream effects, be it crashing the plane into the ocean or into NYC skyscrapers.
From the report you linked:

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or ot

A couple of problems there. First, hijackings weren't the only thing under discussion, far from it. The scenarios laid out for hijackings (freeing prisoners) would have worked against your plan since failure to accommodate them could be more likely to cause needless death. (Fly where we tell you or the bomb goes off. Free the prisoners or the bomb goes off.) Up until the actual 9/11 attacks it had generally been better to cooperate with the hijackers until rescue could be arranged.

Exactly. The dogma of that era was to simply let them take over the plane. They're just going to fly it to Cuba or something, or land someplace and hold everyone hostage until their uncle is let out of prison (etc.) We had ZERO experience with suicidal jihadists flying planes into the things.

Well given the CIA report entited "Bin Laden determined to attack US" mentioning flying planes into buildings... and with the spooks trying to get emergency meetings with El Presidente Bush, I don't think Thin Thread would have helped.

Your "given" is a lie. The Presidential Daily Brief containing the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US [gwu.edu]" assessment doesn't make any mention of flying planes into buildings.

What is the basis for your suggestion that the CIA couldn't get a meeting with President Bush? Another lie?

The problem with 9/11 was a President who was too lazy to act, and was family friends with the Bin Ladens, so had a reason to ignore anything that might cause his friends/business partners bad press. It happened to suit his friends political agendas too. Giving them the excuse to pass Patriot act, and, as we learned from some of the leaks, the mass surveillance started 1998, and 9/11 Patriot act simply gave it a legal cover.

The problem with much 9/11 commentary is that it is uninformed, distorted, manipulative, dishonest, and partisan. It is unimaginably stupid to suggest the President Bush willfully overlooked an attack on the United States on the

It is unimaginably stupid to suggest the President Bush willfully overlooked an attack on the United States on the basis of "family friends" as you have, as is any suggestion that the attack was allowed for political advantage. You've suggested both

If my grandmother had wheels, she would've been a bike. Are we really supposed to attribute the failures of the three letter agencies to "unfortunate mistakes" and otherwise believe in their efficacy? Well, I consider myself a millionaire: Unfortunately I chose the wrong numbers on the lottery ticket, but other than that, I'm rich!

Let's say the NSA somehow knows there is a message between two people they want to decrypt. With the computing power they have how long would it take? What I'm getting at is if the NSA had to concentrate only on targets would they be able to break the encryption?

This really depends on the type of encryption used, and if the key can be discovered. When you discuss cryptanalysis from a math position, you have ideas like "this is a known plaintext attack- we know the first X bytes of the message, can we recover the rest of the message, or the key?" and so on down the list. If something is encrypted with a symmetric key- for instance, AES 128, or Serpent, or Twofish- then the odds of recovering the data given just the key, or a plaintext sample, seem hopeless.

It is true that a couple of years before 9/11 events CNN/ABC sent a crew to meet Bin Laden's to get the interviews multiple times. Even two months before the events bin Laden was giving interviews to the local journalists.

If journalists could meet, why the fuck do we need electronic surveillance at all and later we hear complains saying that we needed more surveillance, since if we had more surveillance events would have been prevented. If journalists can get interviews freely, then I would be really stupid to believe that US, which has very powerful and most expensive intelligence agencies in the world, really wanted to catch him, because they did not.

That's why I got out of the business. You folks need to realize TT was a program of many. You know in the black projects world, there are multiple stovepipes, more are doing the same thing, due to creating of competing teams. Where's the academic paper that shows how better this system was... against others? All we know is the politics since TBlazer was the big, most bloated, known contract of the time.

Though TT has some merit in its creation and performance, there's a dozen others you don't know about that

Nobody doubts that the CIA and other parts of the federal government have occasionally cultivated a public image of incompetence to mask their very competent evil. I totally disagree with your assertions about Snowden however. You call those revelations "zilch"? WTF more can there be? NSA nanobots infecting our bodies and reporting on our biometric data? He really did give us the smoking gun as well as the dead body of the U.S. Constitution. The ho-hum reaction is due to ignorance and indifference; I